Similar presentations

2
The rationale and analysis undertaken by the UK National Platform that led to the initiative of a peer-review process (or Why be Peer reviewed ?) 2UK Peer Review.........Because the self –assessment HFA Monitor Template isnt fit for purpose;.........Because it raised the profile of HFA amongst Ministers and senior officials;..........Because, its independent, transparent and a true reflection of what goes on in a country. The Review covers areas the monitor never does;........Because it involves learning from each other;.........Because it gives the opportunity to those who do to discuss what they do and why;..........Because at the end you have a true reflection of DRR in a country, what they do well and what they need to do to get better.

3
The steps taken in organizing the peer-review process This was the first time this had been undertaken. There was no template, no precedent to follow. The planning and consultations took place up to 6 months before the event. This involved finding finance for it (from the EU), planning its length, when (the UK had the Olympics in 2012), and ensuring any sensitivities of the host were covered. The UK did not want to be too involved in this process. Volunteers were requested from amongst the EFDRR. Several countries expressed an interest, but didnt pursue it. Finland, Italy and Sweden assisted by the UN, EU and OECD made up the team. Finland took the lead - a team of 7 arrived in the UK. Highlight Swedens innovation. They didnt use an HFA Focal point, rather a member of their National Platform who expressed an interest. Do not be fooled! 3UK Peer Review

4
Development of the final report Saw nearly 90 people in 7 days, and spoke to 45 organisations, government departments and Scottish and Welsh government representatives Worked from 0900 to 1730 on most days, some with 30 minute lunchbreaks, and then made further notes and write-ups in the evening. At least 100 hours of work Travelled over 500 km around the UK How much did it cost? The EU estimate that it has come in under 50,000 (just for fares, board and lodging), but this needs to be clarified. The writing of the report was undertaken by the Peer team and led by Finland. The report was shown to the UK at an early drafting stage. Nothing was requested to be removed and only cosmetic changes made. 4UK Peer Review

5
Would we encourage you to be Peer Reviewed? Would we recommend any other countries to take part in a peer review? 1.Without hesitation – we all learned a great deal about the HFA process. The UK learned those areas it is strong in, those that still need improvement and helped us begin to think where we want HFA2 to go. 2.The process is NOT about finding fault. It would have been easy to do that in the UK the objective was to learn, to add value to get better. 3.Our comments on the process, what happens next, and some of the recommendations can be seen/heard in Chapter 2 this afternoon. 4.The system isnt nearly perfect yet. Even so in Europe, Finland are next up, and Sweden considering it. 5UK Peer Review